SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (89752)8/22/2010 8:16:54 PM
From: TideGlider  Respond to of 224749
 
Do they all smoke?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (89752)8/23/2010 6:55:49 AM
From: SGJ3 Recommendations  Respond to of 224749
 
Billary promised not to quit Arkansas governor and Senate seat in NY.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (89752)8/23/2010 7:48:31 AM
From: lorne4 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 224749
 
The Muslims are coming!
August 23, 2010
By Chuck Morse
wnd.com

The influx of Muslims into the United States, and what this potentially means to our society and culture, is a serious and profound topic that should be discussed and examined dispassionately and without rancor.

Fortunately most Muslims in the United States today are secular and western in their orientation, at least at this juncture in time. Yet a scenario exists, one that cannot be credibly denied, in which fundamentalist Islamic clerics could make inroads into that community in the future. Therefore, as a form of national inoculation, the doctrines of Islam must be publicly exposed and the practices and mores of the true believers in Islam must be understood without equivocation. Additionally, serious attention should be paid to the track record of the recently established Muslim minority communities in Europe.

Where are the social scientists? Where are the high-minded intellectuals who have vigorously examined and written interminable articles claiming that Christian fundamentalism threatens American democracy? Their silence on the topic of the potential influence of Islam in America seems to indicate that the intellectuals are part of a left-wing cultural dictatorship that has chosen to view criticism of Islam through the lens of intolerance and any critique of Islam as a form of bigotry regardless of its level of accuracy. The liberals, by their dishonesty and cowardice, pose as much of a threat to our society as does a potential element within the Muslim community. Besides, Christianity, unlike Islam, is a religion of tolerance and individual choice.

The basic doctrines of Islam are well known but are rarely discussed in polite company and those doctrines illustrate anything but tolerance. Islamic Shariah law calls for the execution of apostates, homosexuals, women who are seen in the company of men other than their husband or guardian and anyone else deemed by Islamic authorities to be an active political or religious opponent of Islam. Remember Salmon Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh? Islam calls for the military physical subjugation of the entire planet under the scimitar. Islam calls for perpetual war, or jihad, against that portion of the planet that refuses to submit to its rule. Islam calls for the slaughter of Jews and Christians who refuse to submit. Islamic societies tolerate minorities only if they accept dhimmi status in which they have no rights. Islam supports lies and deception on the part of Muslims in the non-Muslim world, or what Islam calls the world of war, if those lies further the interests of the Islamic agenda. Islam is imperialistic and militant by nature as opposed to by exception.

The aforementioned statements are documented and irrefutable facts. Islamic doctrine is not just theoretical but it is an integral part of all Islamic societies to varying degrees. Islamic societies are not free but they are rather authoritarian in nature. Perhaps, in time, and with western influence, Islamic societies may become more free and women in particular will no longer have to live in fear and in a state of submission. As a governing philosophy, Islam is not compatible with American notions of freedom. These statements are not meant to be chauvinistic. Freedom transcends American society. Freedom is available to all people who choose to grasp its meaning and significance. Freedom is the natural state of all human society.

Islamic influence is becoming more prevalent every passing year in America. There are 6-7 million Muslims in America today, and there has been a 75 percent increase in affiliation on the part of Muslims with the ever-increasing numbers of mosques springing up across the country. How many of these mosques might at some point host a fundamentalist Muslim cleric who might preach a message of violence and hate? Even if such an event is rare, an Islamic cleric preaching anti-Semitism, homophobia, male patriarchy, Islamic supremacy, that event could spawn recruits in the ongoing jihad plaguing the free world today.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (89752)8/23/2010 9:15:25 AM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224749
 
Dealing With Illegal Immigration - A Federal Mandate, Not an Option

In 2005, I wrote an op-ed essay for the "Seattle Times" publication, "Times of Snohomish County," entitled "Under the Noses of Out-of-Work Americans," concerning illegal immigration and its sad effect felt near Seattle, Washington, just 90 miles south of the Canadian border. Currently, I am as vehemently opposed to illegal immigration as I was then, if not more so, and, especially, to the failure of the enforcement agencies of the federal government to properly and faithfully execute the laws that were specially legislated by Congress to stem the flow of illegal aliens into the United States. You know, having the mind and conscience of a true American constitutes being faithful and true to an American culture and seeking to identify with American ideals, two of which are using the freedoms and liberty available to readily assimilate into the American mainstream, and putting the good of the uniquely sovereign American economy and government above that of any other national interest.

With over 20 million illegal aliens (the majority of whom are Hispanic) within the country, holding jobs with false documentation, or no documentation at all of citizenship, should truly civic-minded natural born, or naturalized, citizens feel rightfully suspicious, and perhaps outraged, when, perhaps, they stand waiting in supermarket check-out lines behind Hispanic individuals unable to speak a bit of English who are attempting to purchase items they can't afford? If, for instance, the average American citizen standing in those lines knew that those people attempting to check-out were, probably, un-apprehended shoplifters, who had deliberately conspired with other shoplifters to surreptitiously enter stores to steal merchandise from unsuspecting storeowners, would she feel any differently about them? Would the average American have the inclination to speak-out against such people? Surprisingly, today, most honest, and perhaps not so honest, natural born and naturalized citizens in this country immediately report shoplifters to storeowners and managers if they see them pilfer merchandise while shopping. Why? Well, shoplifting is clearly against the law, even if the crime is only classified as a misdemeanor. Good citizens are not supposed to break the law. Going a bit further, what if an individual, poor, ragged, and obviously hungry, enters a store and stuffs expensive food items into his pants and furtively attempts to exit the store undetected? What if that person is apprehended by store security personnel, handcuffed, arrested, and, ultimately, turned-over to the police? Will most people feel sorry for the thief and wish him a speedy release from the criminal justice system? No, I don't think so.

Posing another feasible scenario, suppose that a person (let's presume that she's a natural born citizen of the United States) wants to obtain a federal job working inside a federal compound that requires special documentation. Let's also suppose that all this person wants to do is to work honestly for the federal government in order to get a much higher salary, but has no credentials to get inside the federal compound. To get the proper credentials, she would have to abide by the existing laws and go through an administrative process that would require a considerable length of time, and even then there would be no absolute guarantee of her getting the credentials. So, she secretly pays a forger five-hundred dollars for a false, but very convincing, credential and, thereby, gains entrance to, and work in, the federal compound. If this person is subsequently discovered to have a forged credential and is arrested by federal law enforcement agents, will most people consider it a miscarriage of justice if she is convicted of a federal crime and imprisoned? No, I don't think so. She broke the law.

Currently assembled on the streets and highways of most American cities, especially, in places like Prince William County, Virginia, are congregations of undocumented aliens, Hispanic men and women, people who can't speak a coherent sentence in proper English, waiting for contractors and businesspeople to offer them daily work for under-the-table wages. Tragic but true, most of these Hispanic men, who can't speak any English, have committed the crimes of conspiracy to illegally enter the United States as well as the crime of illegally entering the United States. These people, mostly Mexican, have violated U.S. federal law to illicitly celebrate the outrageous exhortation Felipe Calderon, the current President of Mexico, gave to illegal Mexican aliens, that, "Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico," which actually encouraged an increase of illegal immigration into the United States.

With the steady increase in the population of Hispanic citizenry throughout the nation, there is going to be a large continuing component of that population who will seek the interests of Mexico, and other nations South of the U.S. border, over the interests of the United States. For instance, a pregnant woman in Juarez, Mexico conspires with several other Mexican nationals to illegally immigrate across the U.S. border into El Paso, Texas. They pay a sinister person, called a coyote, to smuggle them across the border in a truck, car, or van. The pregnant woman is in her ninth month of pregnancy and gets caught by the U.S. Border Patrol, along with her co-conspirators and the coyote, immediately after entering the United States. As she exits the vehicle, her water breaks and she delivers twin boys who, according to existing federal law, are immediately American citizens only because they are born on U.S. soil. The second birth is, however, medically complicated by the woman's life-endangering health problems, so a life-flight helicopter is summoned to take the woman to the nearest hospital, public or private, for the best possible care. Who picks up the tab for these exorbitant hospital expenses? Why, the U.S. taxpayers pays the exorbitant costs of healthcare for all captured illegal aliens who have conspired to violate federal law, and are culpable of federal misdemeanors and felonies. These obvious felons receive top-notch health care, at the expense of the U.S. Government, while 40 million law-abiding American citizens cannot afford to go to a physician to get relief from pain, and, therefore, go without such care.

But that really isn't the full extent of the problem. You see, the children of this illegal alien female now have rights as American citizens, and the woman realizes this. In fact, she fully realized it before she conspired to illegally immigrate. To allege that she didn't is an incredulous stretch of the imagination. She has probably also realized the fact that many U.S. immigration judges (quite a few Hispanic), who are sympathetic to illegal aliens, will routinely rule to allow women, such as her, to possess green cards in order to remain with their citizen children in the United States. Yet, when these children grow to adulthood in the United States, the odds are that they will advocate and encourage other Mexican nationals to do the same as their mother did. Shockingly, approximately 9-to-15 percent of the existing Mexican-American population are those individuals who were born, on U.S. soil, to parents who were illegal aliens at the time of birth. For this primary reason, the existing law should be quickly changed to read that, "only children born to women who are "legally" in the United States at the time of birth are to be classified as natural born citizens." This change would effectively solve the conspiracy issue if illegal alien Mexicans, and any other illegal foreign nationals, realized that they would be immediately deported back to their countries of origin, with their newborn children, if they gave birth in the United States. While many of the Hispanic minority segment, of the U.S. electorate, would probably oppose such a change in the law, the great majority of U.S. citizens who seek the greatest good for the benefit of the American republic would favor such a change.

The bottom line of the illegal immigration issue is that illegal aliens are criminals, because they have broken federal law to get what they want. Currently, the first act of illegally immigrating into the United States constitutes a misdemeanor, what running a stoplight is equivalent to in Texas. Placing illegal immigration, a conspiratorial crime, on the same criminal level as shoplifting (a low misdemeanor under federal and most state law) does not make good sense. There are no teeth in such laws in order to deter other people from violating them. With the current level of fear from potential terrorism in the U.S., the probability of a terrorist, posing as an illegal Hispanic alien, crossing the Southern U.S. border into the U.S. in order to commit mayhem somewhere in the nation, is pretty great. This is why the crime of illegal immigration should carry with it the punishment afforded to a felony, not a misdemeanor. The primary reason that there is not more espionage and sabotage committed in the United States, by agents of foreign nations and U.S. citizens working for them, is that there are such horrible penalties for such felony crimes. A second act of illegal immigration, by an alien who was simply returned to the border after being apprehended the first time, is, supposedly, a federal felony; but the Border Patrol working in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California hardly ever enforce the law to its fullest extent. I know this to be a fact, as I worked as a San Diego County Deputy Sheriff, for several months, closely around senior U.S. Border Patrol agents who clearly explained to me how they were ordered by Washington to use restraint in enforcing immigration laws.

When you see Hispanic men or women, who can't speak a lick of English, in grocery stores, 7-Elevens, Laundromats, Walmarts, or loitering on the streets waiting for work, the odds are that they are illegal aliens. You see, legal foreign residents, who have immigrated properly into the United States will, at least, attempt to learn English, and will have a working English vocabulary within six months-to-a year of arriving in the country. Most, if not all, legal immigrants are literate in their own native language, know a smattering of spoken English, and will purchase instructional English language materials to improve their written and spoken proficiency in pursuit of eventual naturalization. On the other hand, illegal aliens will, in most cases, refrain from exposing themselves in adult literacy classes, and will only associate with other illegal aliens in safe houses provided by rogue citizens who illicitly harbor illegal immigrants. Therefore, most undocumented aliens won't attempt to learn English while they are attempting to establish themselves in their false identities, which might take as long as two years. During that time, they will purchase fraudulent birth certificates, Social Security cards, and other documents, with which they will attempt to obtain drivers' licenses for the purpose of having false state-approved identification in their possession. This is another crime, a felony, added to their long list of offenses. Though law enforcement is cracking down on the providers of these fake documents, they are still quite prevalent in large urban areas where large Hispanic communities exist.

The crux of the current illegal immigration problem in the United States is two-fold. The first, and most compelling issue that must be addressed is the lack of proper immigration law enforcement provided by U.S. law enforcement agencies. The second compelling issue is the lack of a strong deterrent against illegal immigration, and is fully contingent on solving the problems associated with the first issue. The immediate construction of a penetration-proof wall or barrier along the Southern U.S. border, which would effectively stem the flow of undocumented Hispanic aliens, would, of course, be a good start, and most of the American electorate would appreciate it being done. If the federal government can quickly build, at taxpayer expense electrified fences and impenetrable walls around such military facilities as Area 51, nuclear power plants, and other top-secret federal facilities, in order to keep ordinary American citizens out, why can't they do the same thing along the borders of the United States to keep out illegal aliens? The reason that it has not been done is basically political. You have a U.S. Congress that supposedly creates laws, telling an extremely duped electorate that the legislations are essential and proper, while, at the same time, secretly auctioning-off the selective purposes of the laws for the benefit of special political interests with hidden agendas.

Then there is the Executive Branch, the U.S. President, who swears on the Bible to faithfully execute, or enforce, the laws of the American republic, while, at the same time, clandestinely planning his own re-election through enforcing only the laws that will be advantageous to his own political future. While both Congress and the President, and, most likely, the U.S. Supreme Court, would publicly agree that a conspiring recidivist shoplifter, in DC or any state, should be charged with a felony, convicted, and shipped off to a penal institution for a long, long penal sentence, they can't seem to get together to concur that an illegal alien is a criminal, and should be treated like one. If these two issues are not properly addressed before the end of 2010, there will be many more undocumented Hispanic aliens within the U.S. borders, than the current 15 to 20 million, with whom to deal; and at that time a point of no return may be reached, in terms of crime and social disorder, which will be to the extreme detriment of law-abiding American citizens.

Norton R. Nowlin took M.A. and B.A. degrees in the social and behavioral sciences from the University of Texas at Tyler, studied law for one full year at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California, and earned an ABA-approved advanced paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington. Mr. Nowlin has attended LaJolla, California's National University and Malibu's Pepperdine University to attain graduate credits in business management and economics. Mr. Nowlin also attained a Texas State Teaching Certification, in social studies and psychology, from the University of Texas at Tyler. A paralegal, published essayist, poet, and free-lance fiction writer, Mr. Nowlin resides in Northern Virginia with his wife, the renown math tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats.

Article Source: ezinearticles.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (89752)8/23/2010 12:08:07 PM
From: TideGlider  Respond to of 224749
 
Many More Now Following Mosque Controversy – And Don’t Like It
Monday, August 23, 2010 Email to a Friend ShareThis.Advertisement
A lot more voters are paying attention to the plans to build a mosque near the Ground Zero site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City, and they don’t like the idea.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 85% of U.S. voters say they are now following news stories about the mosque planned near Ground Zero. That’s a 34-point jump from a month ago when only 51% said they were following the story.

The new finding includes 58% who are following the story very closely, up from 22% in mid-July.

Now 62% oppose the building of a mosque near where the World Trade Center stood in Lower Manhattan, compared to 54% in the previous survey. Twenty-five percent (25%) favor allowing the mosque to go ahead, and 13% more are not sure.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the Political Class, however, favor building the mosque near Ground Zero. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Mainstream voters are opposed.

Since the July survey, the local New York City zoning debate over the planned 13-story Cordoba mosque has escalated into a national controversy. It has even been addressed by President Obama, who supports the building of the mosque in the name of religious tolerance. Opponents of the project, including many who lost loved ones in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, see the mosque as a deliberate provocation that dishonors the memories of the 3,000 people who died that day.

In mid-July, most voters in New York (58%) opposed the building of the mosque near Ground Zero. Twenty percent (20%) supported it, and 21% were undecided.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 19-20, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say the building of the mosque near the 9/11 site is insensitive. Just 23% disagree.

Only 22% say they are at least somewhat confident that the mosque is being built to honor those who died in the 9/11 attacks, as some have suggested. That’s down eight points from last month.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) are not confident that the mosque is intended to honor those killed by the terrorists. This includes eight percent (8%) who are Very Confident and 41% who are Not At All Confident.

Still, just 49% say the mosque issue is at least somewhat important in terms of how they will vote, with 27% who say it is Very Important. Forty-six percent (46%) view the mosque as unimportant to their vote, including 20% who say it is Not At All Important.

There’s a high level of interest in the mosque story across all demographic categories.

Yet while 85% of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either party oppose the building of the mosque near Ground Zero, Democrats are evenly divided on the question. There’s a similar division of opinion in the president’s party over whether the location of the mosque is insensitive, while Republican and unaffiliated voters believe strongly that it is.

But most Democrats like the majority of GOP voters and unaffiliateds are not very or not at all confident that the mosque is being built to honor those who died on 9/11.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of the Political Class, on the other hand, are confident that the mosque will honor those killed by the terrorists. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Mainstream voters don’t share that confidence.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Mainstream voters say the mosque issue is important to how they will vote, with 34% who say it is Very Important. Political Class voters say overwhelmingly that the issue is not important to their vote.

For the first time this year, the number who believe America is safer today than it was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks is slightly higher than those who disagree.

Voters are now as pessimistic about America’s relationship with Israel as they are about relations with the Muslim world.

Iran’s first nuclear plant has just gone online, and some speculate that Israel will take military action against it. Fifty-one percent (51%) of U.S. voters believe the United States should help Israel if it attacks Iran.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (89752)8/23/2010 1:34:32 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224749
 
idiot odumba hiding for ten days in a beach house ??? markets keep tanking ???



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (89752)8/23/2010 3:53:40 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations  Respond to of 224749
 
Sentence of the day:

From a NYT editorial - “But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”

h/t bill